The question that one really faces here is what do people really believe our duty as a human is? If one acts morally correct that means we are following certain rules or a distinct way of life under restrictions of right and wrong. According to Davis, if one has these beliefs, there has to be some wrong in one self, “thus morally unacceptable,” (Davis, 205). This belief is what is called deontology. This meaning a study of nature of responsibility and obligation, instead of those who are known as teleologists, where right and wrong are determined by the consequences of our actions (Davis, 205). As a deontologist, one is not able to see the difference between what is right and what is good. For one to be moral, one must follow a set of rules as a guide for their way of life. If there are no consequences when something is done wrong, how do we then again determine it is wrong? Opposed to consequentialism, our action leads to a certain result, which is the consequence one receives for their doing. Is it morally correct to only follow these certain constraints that deontologists are supposed to follow? Meaning, deontologists live their lives very carefully because one must always know and be able to judge what is wrong before we even acting upon it. For one to be a follower of deontology one must follow a certain structure, and only that structure. If we fail to do something then we must consciously know we are not acting correctly, and that in the end there is no way to get around doing bad.
Deontology, maintains the wrongness in our actions before a consequence is even determined to result in that action. Davis also goes on to explain deontological constraints are also “narrowly directed.” The consequence does not change from action to action. If one does something deliberately, one must pay the price. “ We are not as responsible for the foreseen consequences of our actions as we are for the things that we intend,” (Davis 209). Does this mean that one is more responsible for the actions that they perform, then they are for the actual consequences that really result from them? For example, if an innocent man was murdered, the idea of killing is wrong, deontologists forget to recognize the consequence of ones action. Killing an innocent man can tear a family apart and cause much grief. If we don’t think about the consequences of our actions that is not morally correct. Shouldn’t we always be aware of what our actions can cause to our environment? Deontologists are enabled to act in a way that may not necessarily be “good”, and that be okay, but for a consequentialist, your actions should always be the best ones, and never be any less. Violating the deontologist structure, means intentionally doing something not morally correct.
Although, one should know what is right and wrong automatically, there shouldn’t be only a set of rules that one must follow to live a moral life. Whether or not you choose to live a deontological or consequential life, shouldn’t we live by both? Yes, we should have laws to follow, but we should also be given a consequence for our actions, good or bad. That is what makes one a better person to learn to live a moral and successful life.
14 comments:
Michele I do not agree with you when you say that we need to either be rewarded or punished based on the consequences of our actions. In order for someone to live a moral life they must follow what is morally right. Therefore, when you do something wrong you and know it is wrong; you do not need to be punished for the consequences of your action in order to live a moral life. Rather since you know you have made a mistake, you will know in the future to not make the same mistake. I would answer your last question by saying that we do not need to live both a consequential and deontological life, but instead you can live a moral life following only deontological life. The main reason is because as a deontologist you would know you are about to do something wrong, which would cause you not to choose to take that course of action. If you choose to do wrong then you are punished for the action of doing the wrong thing, which normally contains the consequences directly related with the wrongdoing.
I can see where you are coming from when you say that a moral life should be based upon consequences and deontology.
Deontology can be argued to be the best way to live a moral life in that it gives us a set of rules to follow. Adhering to these maxims guarantees us a life of morality.
However, understanding and taking into account the consequences of our actions can give us a better understanding as to why a maxim is adopted to begin with. Further, being judged solely upon the decision to do wrong and disregarding the ramifications of our decisions not only disregards the evidence as to why we should not have gone against a maxim to begin with, but makes immoral and moral acts less tangible. If immoral acts are less tangible, how can we expect a reaction from others or justice to be served in appropriate degrees? Taking into account how our actions will affect our environment put us on a higher level of understanding when it comes to which choice is the right choice.
I understand how people may believe that the constructs of deontology could be too strict or "narrow" as you say in your post, but I also believe that this type of thinking is needed in order to have some type of structure for our actions. Although deontological thinking may be too strict for our modern societal ways of thinking, it is a way in guiding people towards right rather than wrong. However, I do agree that most people do not think of the consequences of their actions before they are actually performed, but deontological thinking may be able to act as an incentive to think about one's actions before proceeding.
I agree with Tom. The consequences of our actions should help reinforce our understanding morality (but should not determine how we live our life). For example, I don't believe that a moral deontologist would kill an innocent person to begin with. Murder would conflict with their duty. Realizing the positive consequences of their actions might help deontologists see the morality in nonviolence, but at no point would a deontologist allow the consequences of their actions determine how they act. I think in a world of perfect deontological morality, everyone's actions would inherently coincide peacefully.
Alex, I strongly agree with your last sentence. I was thinking the same thing as I read through Davis' essay and Kant's passage about his Kingdom of Ends. If every single person in the world followed Kant's version of deontology, we would live in a peaceful and fruitful environment.
However, that isn't the case and never will be. Instead of pretending we can achieve this perfect world by starting with ourselves, why don't we embrace teleological concepts in order to pursue the greatest good. And as Davis alludes to, deontologists are simply being near-sighted when they refuse to kill one person if it saves five. Isn't the deontologist doing just as much disrespect to those five as he/she is to the one in the long run?
I feel like deontology is simply a pipe dream that, as Alex stated, would only work and achieve peace if everyone fully embraced it. Any rationalists will realize this can never happen.
I also agree with Tom, deontology does give us a moral set of maxims to follow, but having consequences helps provide insight as to why we have those maxims in the first place. If people don't understand why a maxim, or rule, is in place are they likely to follow it? No. As Tom said, it makes moral acts less tangible. If people don't understand why some action is moral, why should they act accordingly? It seems as if the goal of deontology is for people to blindly follow maxims. In that case what if complying with deontological maxims brings disastrous consequences? For example, say person X follows the deontological maxim not to harm person Y but because of that decision 10,000 other people perish. It seems silly to not take into account consequences in this case. Had the ramifications been taken into account, 10,000 innocent people would still be alive. All in all, I agree with Michele when she says in modern society we should use both deontology and consequentialism to live a moral life.
When opposing deontological morality, a lot of the comments present it as “blindly following a set of rules” with no regard to consequences. However, I think that this does not capture what deontology entails. As an autonomous moralist, Kant explains that morality depends on our a priori reason and cannot be determined by the circumstances surrounding us, as opposed to, say, a naturalist. This is an important distinction to note because it establishes an unchanging moral criterion. If we allowed consequences to determine morality, we would step into the kind of moral relativism that sways with every changing circumstance, and as such would turn morality into a case-by-case basis with no proper justification. If we allowed consequences to influence morality, who could determine which results justify the bending of morality and which ones do not? Would each individual person be allowed to justify his actions based on the value of the results to him or herself? I think this would lead us into moral solipsism, or even, worse, nihilism, since moral constraint would have no value.
Michele, I believe that your statement commenting on how we can know whether something is right or wrong without consequences has a lot of truth to it however I believe there should be a clause added. As young adults with about twenty years of experience behind us, we usually can tell when something is right or wrong before we commit the action because of unique situations in the past that we have been able to learn from. Consequences are important, but we do have the ability to educate ourselves from previous times when we were punished or rewarded for times when we were good or bad. We have the ability to form a list of rules in which we can live our lives in a moral manner.
Sure, deontologists only judge an action, through whether it is right or wrong in itself, but with your example of killing an innocent man, killing an innocent man is itself a wrong action, regardless of the consequences. Killing an innocent man is taking away a life, which is also taking away a loved one from his family and friends. Why look at the consequences of the death? Yes, his family will be sad, and if he is sole breadwinner of the family, yes, his family will starve. I don’t think one even needs to look at the consequences in order to deem killing an innocent man, wrong.
I agree with you that we should be concerned with the consequences of our actions but I think that being concerned with one's own actions is a Christian belief that many of us have been influenced by. I think the only way that Kant's deontology can work and still be considered moral in all situations is if every person followed all of his universal laws. If we were all only concerned with the good of our own actions and all of our actions obeyed a universal law then the consequences of our actions would always be positive anyway and we wouldn't have to worry about any special situations.
I agree with you that we should be concerned with the consequences of our actions but I think that being concerned with one's own actions is a Christian belief that many of us have been influenced by. I think the only way that Kant's deontology can work and still be considered moral in all situations is if every person followed all of his universal laws. If we were all only concerned with the good of our own actions and all of our actions obeyed a universal law then the consequences of our actions would always be positive anyway and we wouldn't have to worry about any special situations.
Not to go so far as to say that I agree with you, Michelle, but I do see where your judgments on deontology are coming from. Yes, as many other comments have pointed out, a deontological life is potentially rewarding in that you have direct moral criterion, thus, there is never confusion over what you should do. However, taking things in a different direction, I see deontology as a rather selfish belief system. it requires acting in accordance with duty in a way that is completely disconnected from the outcome of ones action. In our current society, if I were to do what is "right" with NO concerns for what the consequences of my actions are, I would undoubtably hurt others around me. If in a certain situation telling the truth comes at the expense of your families life, deontology still requires that you tell the truth, thus killing your family. I don't see anything morally righteous about that.
Michele, I completely agree that all beings should be held accountable for all of their actions because if we are allowed to act simply based on whether the action is our duty or not it could hurt us in the end. By hurt us I mean that it is possible that as you mentioned our duty could be an action that is not necessarily beneficial to all those around us. If we act based on both our duty and how the action will eventually affect those around us then in the end we will all be better off because our dutiful actions will also be an action that results in good.
As deontologists we would recognize that the actions we are about to choose is completely wrong. This is, in itself, a punishment. No laws can affect you in the same manner than when you recognize the immoral action you are going to commit. So I disagree with you when you suggest to lead a both deontological and consequential life for the former is enough to facilitate a moral life. Only because recognizing your own immoral actions as wrong with the possibility of learning from these actions is all that is necessary. For those who do not learn from their actions, our society has the laws that these actions would break and the punishments to make these people learn.
Post a Comment